Despite holding a letter of authority from the Master of the High Court, the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has ruled against a group of siblings, ordering them to vacate the Ekurhuleni property now legally owned by Thonts Properties (Pty).
The court dismissed an urgent application brought by one of the siblings, Nomathemba Adolphina Somo, who attempted to challenge an eviction order that had been in effect since October 7, 2024. Somo and her siblings argued that their lifelong residence in the property entitled them to remain there, citing their deep-rooted family history as a basis for occupation.
However, Judge Graham Nasious Moshoana ruled that their claims lacked the necessary legal foundation, particularly because the property in question did not form part of the estate Somo sought to protect. The siblings had resided in the house since birth, raised by their late parents, James Steven Phakathi and Komane Evelyn Phakathi, but legal ownership had long since changed hands.
Court documents revealed that the property had been financed through Nedbank, which also held insurance on it. Although the couple had been married in community of property, the financial strain led to a judgment against them in February 2004 due to arrears. This resulted in the bank selling the property at a public auction, transferring ownership to Nedbank in April 2004. Years later, Thonts Properties acquired the title in 2021 after the property had been without formal ownership for nearly 17 years.
Thonts Properties argued that the urgency claimed by Somo was self-created and urged the court to strike the matter from the roll for lack of urgency. In contrast, Somo and her siblings contended that their urgency arose from the looming eviction, which formally identified them as unlawful occupants in January 2025.
Somo’s attorney further argued that her siblings depended on her financially, and their eviction would create an additional burden. However, Judge Moshoana noted that this argument was not mentioned in Somo’s affidavit, highlighting a critical procedural flaw in her case. Citing legal precedent from Pilane and Another vs. Pilane and Another, the judge reiterated that applicants must present their full case in their founding affidavit and not introduce new arguments later.
The court ultimately ruled that Somo had failed to establish legal standing and demonstrate any imminent harm that would justify urgent intervention. Judge Moshoana emphasized that a lack of legal standing is a fatal flaw in any court application, rendering it unsustainable. Consequently, the court dismissed Somo’s application with costs, reaffirming Thonts Properties’ legal ownership and upholding the eviction order.
